Sliding Scale tropes

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot for the life of me figure out the point of these articles. I don't even think most of them are tropes. They usually describe two opposite concepts (which would be better off as two separate tropes. In fact, many of which already are — eg, the Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism, we have entire indexes for Idealism Tropes and Cynicism Tropes), which makes them difficult to use in examples. Listing or potholing a Sliding Scale trope is pointless because it gives no information — you have to explain where it falls on the scale in order to make any sense of it at all, and you can do that just as easily without the Sliding Scale trope at all. Compare "this work falls on the far end of the Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism" and "this work is fairly cynical in tone".

So, basically, I think every Sliding Scale trope needs to be either reworked (if it's a legitimate trope) or deleted (if it's just a listing of two or more other tropes). Full list of Sliding Scales can be found under Sorting Algorithm of Tropes.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I agree, I can't really figure out the point of these, or the appeal of fiddling with them.

Jet-a-Reeno!

Agree. Delete.

What was the original "Sliding Scale" trope? I bet it had concrete and tropetastic value (and whose core meaning did not depend on being a "sliding scale"), but the concept decayed into "a scale with a trope at each end is its own trope!" (it's not) which has little or no value.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

I think they're more of a Just for Fun thing than actual tropes, a sort of game with tropers placing their works toward one end of the scale or the other.

Check out a few of the entries on the index and see if that's true.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

If they're just for fun, why delete them? Can you demonstrate any problems they're causing?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

They are not marked or otherwise designated "just for fun". They present themselves as valid tropes. They are not. Having not-trope articles alongside trope articles diminishes the quality of a wiki dedicated to cataloging tropes.

If there were articles that contained only recipes for desserts, and someone suggested they should be deleted, would it be appropriate to ask for proof that they are causing harm?

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Sliding Scale Of Antiheroes is the only one I use, because having separate tropes for "regular antihero", "mean antihero", "slightly meaner antihero", and "very mean antihero" seems silly to me.

Dunno about the others, though.

If I recall correctly, either Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness or Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism (which was originally named Sliding Scale Of Idealism Versus Realism).

I didn't write any of that.

Ah! That is an interesting distinction: sliding scale with various degrees of one trope (worthy) versus sliding scale between two tropes (worthless).

Thanks! Hm, I think I win the bet with myself. Pay up, me!

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Sliding Scale of Comedy and Horror seems like a particularly useless example.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

It strikes me that these tropes are in a space that's similar to (and has the same problems as) Character Alignment. Trying to fit works into some arbitrary and vague scale, and is a huge Natter magnet to boot.

Which doesn't necessarily call for deletion, but at the very least should be shunted off main pages to YMMV.

edited 11th Nov '10 2:46:10 PM by suedenim

Jet-a-Reeno!

I would say a lot of these are incidental things to note rather than being tropes.

But in terms of making them tropes, how about splitting instead of deleting? Take Sliding Scale of Shiny Versus Gritty. We could split that into three tropes, for "shiny" worlds, "gritty" worlds (these two things being Super Tropes for similar tropes listed), and a trope where both worlds are shown.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

In most cases, these sliding scales already have tropes that are set at various points along the scale.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I think part of the appeal is that if someone really wants to create a trope, but can't think of anything not already on the site, they can just organize existing tropes into a sliding scale. Though maybe that's just being too cynical.

Anyway, I think that indexing tropes in the form of a sliding scale is a valid form, it's just been applied unnecessarily and is often redundant. We should look at cutting these on a case by case basis.

Why is cutting the main consideration? Why not trying to find what legit tropes are in there first?

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Didn't mean to overemphasis the need to cut any of these. Just saying that I don't think sliding scales are intrinsically detrimental to the wiki, and we should look at how each page is functioning individually before cutting. Which really goes without saying, so I'm not sure why I brought it up.

I always thought of the sliding scale pages not as tropes themselves, but as disambiguation pages. They show the relationship of tropes to other tropes.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

^ That's an excellent way of putting it. And they can help folks find works they hadn't heard of by placing them in relation to works they do know.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

So it would be like Useful Notes applies to tropes, plots, and/or settings?

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

It's more like mini Canonical List of Subtle Trope Distinctions for when they actually fall into patterns.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

I'm siding with shimaspawn. They serve as a hybrid of trope distinctions, disambiguation, and grouping tropes into families.

Accidental mistakes are forgivable, intentional ones are not.

Sliding scales are rather useful for seeing how tropes interact with each other. More useless ones should be worked though.

i'm with shima on this one.

might i suggest most of them get a subjective banner, though? some of them can be objective (i believe i've seen a sliding scale of animal talk or something similar around?), but the ones that compare more abstract concepts, people are using them as actual tropes, even in cases where it would be clearer to use specific tropes in the sliding scale. and of course, this invites examples like "well, this work is somewhere between level 3 and 4, but then there are also smidges of level 2 in there and you might even find some level 1 details if you squint and turn your head."

(IMO that defeats the point of the sliding scale, but i understand not all works are as clear-cut. still, it's subjective).